Excellent sources of anti-virus comparison reports!!

[Terry Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Wai_Wai

Excellent sources of anti-virus comparison reports!!
Version 1.0.2

Note:
- If anyone finds any other good websites and/or sources, please tell me and I will update my post. Thanks! ...

SC Magazine
...

I'm rather impressed with your listing here. I've noticed ONE major testing organization not mentioned, but in return, you found one that I wasn't familiar with (av-comparatives).

The one omission:

West Coast Labs "Checkmark" system. I would provide an address, but the system keeps blocking the posting of URLs, regardless of how I print it.

This organization provides certification similar to ICSA, and is considered one of the BIG THREE anti-virus certifications. (ICSA, VirusBTN, and Checkmark)
They have test results listed for all checkmarked products, including failures.

They have two levels of AV checkmark. Level 1 is detection only (both on-demand and real-time), requiring that the product detect 100% ITW and West-Coast's own particular Zoo subset. Level 2 is cleaning, requiring Level 1, plus the ability to clean what West-Coast Labs considers "possible to clean". They also have Trojan and Spyware checkmarks for detection only. The specifics (currency of signatures and ITW test bank, etc.) are listed at the site. It should be noted that, like ICSA, this organization's goal is to provide a standard of quality, rather than provide the consumer with a performance comparison. Thus, we have a pass/fail situation, feedback to the product vendor, etc. Take the results in context.

Also, I believe the organization is associated with SC Magazine, which may explain why you found only a few products covered by their articles. They leave the more comprehensive listing to West-Coast and concentrate on their advertisers' products and products of particular interest in the magazine itself.

[UH60LimaTI]

Clicked on this thread to check it out and the first thing I said to myself was," WOW". Awesome work Wai Wai

[Wai_Wai]

Originally Posted by Terry Reynolds

I'm rather impressed with your listing here. I've noticed ONE major testing organization not mentioned, but in return, you found one that I wasn't familiar with (av-comparatives).

The one omission:

West Coast Labs "Checkmark" system. I would provide an address, but the system keeps blocking the posting of URLs, regardless of how I print it.

This organization provides certification similar to ICSA, and is considered one of the BIG THREE anti-virus certifications. (ICSA, VirusBTN, and Checkmark)
They have test results listed for all checkmarked products, including failures.

They have two levels of AV checkmark. Level 1 is detection only (both on-demand and real-time), requiring that the product detect 100% ITW and West-Coast's own particular Zoo subset. Level 2 is cleaning, requiring Level 1, plus the ability to clean what West-Coast Labs considers "possible to clean". They also have Trojan and Spyware checkmarks for detection only. The specifics (currency of signatures and ITW test bank, etc.) are listed at the site. It should be noted that, like ICSA, this organization's goal is to provide a standard of quality, rather than provide the consumer with a performance comparison. Thus, we have a pass/fail situation, feedback to the product vendor, etc. Take the results in context.

Also, I believe the organization is associated with SC Magazine, which may explain why you found only a few products covered by their articles. They leave the more comprehensive listing to West-Coast and concentrate on their advertisers' products and products of particular interest in the magazine itself.

Have a look at the website.
It's great!

To be picky, it seems it doesn't provide detailed results relating to anti-virus reports. what I mean is they don't show data about how well different AV programs perform in different aspects of AV capability. They simply say "yes" or "no" (if I'm wrong, please tell me)

After all, thanks so much for your provision.

[Wai_Wai]

Originally Posted by UH60LimaTI

Clicked on this thread to check it out and the first thing I said to myself was," WOW". Awesome work Wai Wai

Thanks so much for your praise.
Due to your praise, this gives me more motivation for me to provide other good reports/articles in future.

[Terry Reynolds]

I consider West-Coast Labs on a level with ICSA, and probably wouldn't rate it highly recommended, but it is definitely a place I'd check before making a purchase.

West Coast doesn't provide the detail you get from Anti-Virus Test Org or VTC, but AVorg and VTC don't regularly test cleaning, either. And, at least West Coast separates it out into virus detection (level 1), virus cleaning (level 2), trojan detection, and spyware detection. As I understand it, a pass for detection requires 100% of West Coasts' test bank and 100% ITW. A pass for cleaning requires 100% of the same set be cleaned, except where West Coast Labs deems the virus un-cleanable.

The Virus Research Unit (VRU) in Tampere, Finland, also used to do a lot of AV testing, but they stopped in 1999. The old results are still available at their web-site.

[Wai_Wai]

Originally Posted by Terry Reynolds

I consider West-Coast Labs on a level with ICSA, and probably wouldn't rate it highly recommended, but it is definitely a place I'd check before making a purchase.

West Coast doesn't provide the detail you get from Anti-Virus Test Org or VTC, but AVorg and VTC don't regularly test cleaning, either. And, at least West Coast separates it out into virus detection (level 1), virus cleaning (level 2), trojan detection, and spyware detection. As I understand it, a pass for detection requires 100% of West Coasts' test bank and 100% ITW. A pass for cleaning requires 100% of the same set be cleaned, except where West Coast Labs deems the virus un-cleanable.

The Virus Research Unit (VRU) in Tampere, Finland, also used to do a lot of AV testing, but they stopped in 1999. The old results are still available at their web-site.

True.
Websites which provide detailed reports are a bit slow, but I appreciate their situations.
Since they tests not just ITW, but also a wide range of areas (not to say writing up a report needs time), it's worth it although it is a bit outdated.

I do believe an AV program will tend to stay good if the report proves me that it is good. Eg: If I read a report on Jan 2005 and the report proved McAfee to be excellent, I will keep assuming it's still excellent up till now untl I have another chance to read a new report to verify my assumption.

Finally thanks so much for introducing one more place for me to evaluate AV programs. Thanks!

[Gavsman]

WOW nice work man
i even have sored it in a document for later references

[Wai_Wai]

Originally Posted by Gavsman

WOW nice work man
i even have s[t]ored it in a document for later references

Thanks for your praise. :P
It is your praise who encourage me to finish this article.

By the way, if you like the following analysis, you may wish to save this as well:
My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Wai_Wai

My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

You better fix that link!


Great thread and great info, Wai_Wai!

[Wai_Wai]

Originally Posted by Brian

You better fix that link!

Sorry, but what do I need to fix?
The link links correctly to the target file.

Great thread and great info, Wai_Wai!

Thanks so much for your praise.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Wai_Wai

Sorry, but what do I need to fix?

Nothing at all! PCBruiser took care of it!

[wallijonn]

I think that before anyone buys an AV proggie that they should download a demo or crippled version and see how it reacts with one's desktop and other programs. For example, your firewall proggie may stop a program from starting in the system tray.

One thing which I would be interested in would be the ability to resist malware shutting down the app or sys tray app. Another would be the ability to install it through an Admin account but for it to be seamlessly working in a restricted account. (With McAfee it would download the updates through a Limited Account but it could only be installed through an Admin account. I really liked that.)

But as far as most AV prggies go, chances are that if you keep updating daily that it will afford the most protection. Should it be done manually or should it be done automatically? For the most part I do not like the idea of automatic updates if it means assigning Admin privs to the process. (I would think that if Kaspersky updates every hour that its update engine will need Admin privs even if I am using a Limited Account.) The same criticism would go to firewalls, anti-spyware, anti-trojan and anti-BHO applications. When I am using a limited account it is for a reason - to prevent OS files from being modified. The limited account should only have access to its own little container, nothing more.

So in the case of going with BitDefnder 8 Free, it doe not have real-time scanning while AVG does. Some programmes do SPI (stateful packet inspection) while one is surfing the web, others don't. In the case of programs which do SPI they usually have their own proxy servers which may cause problems with firewalls. (This was the case with AOL and Symantec Firewall interacting.) And you just know that you need script-blocking in the real world.

Now, I don't know about you, but I download the lastest update before installing any AV proggie. The idea of being vulnerable while getting an update doesn't appeal to me. This is the reason why some AV testing sites make a big deal of testing the proggie "out of the box" without updates. For me it is a non-issue.

Yes, I'm still looking for a McAfee replacement. I may download AVast! because it works for 30 - 60 days. I may then switch over to BitDefender because it also has a 30 day trial period. Wash, rinse, repeat until I finally settle on THE one.

I don't do chatting, p2p or pop3, so those are features which may be of utmost importance to people who do those types of activities. Not all AVs have that ability. I'm the type that sets the Heuristic setting to "Paranoid." I gotta have advanced Heuristic Engine capabilities.